memory_frontier

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses that it suggests candidates without acquiring leases or changing status (a read-only safety profile), and that agentId excludes actions leased by others. It falls just short of 5 by not covering pagination or ordering beyond the score field.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Four dense sentences with no waste; the ranking/scope constraint is front-loaded, followed by return values, then usage routing. Every sentence earns its place.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

No output schema exists, but the description compensates by enumerating return fields (action, score, lease state, totalActions, totalUnblocked). Combined with parameter and usage guidance, an agent has everything needed to call it correctly.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3, but the description adds real meaning beyond the schema: 'project filters the set' and 'Supply agentId to exclude actions leased by others' clarify intent beyond the terse schema strings. Only 'limit' is left entirely to the schema.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb (Rank) and resource (unfinished actions with no dependency, checkpoint or active-conflict blockers), and explicitly differentiates itself from memory_next and memory_lease. An agent can identify the tool's role without opening the schema.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Names both alternatives and the conditions that select them: memory_next for a single suggestion, memory_lease to claim an action. It also states when this tool is appropriate (suggesting candidates without acquiring leases). Nothing is left to inference.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.